# C_2013274EN.01000901.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 5 July 2013 — Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4, S.L. v GALP Energía España, S.A.U.

(Case C-384/13)

2013/C 274/15

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4, S.L.

Appellant:

Other party: GALP Energía España, S.A.U.

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a supplier of petroleum-based products is granted a right known as a ‘surface right’ for a period of 45 years for the purpose of building a service station and letting it to the owner of the land for a period equivalent to the duration of the right, and which contains an exclusive purchasing obligation for the same period, be regarded as being of negligible importance and as not being caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC (now Article 101(1) TFEU) on the grounds, principally, of the supplier’s modest market share of less than 3 %, compared to the total market share of about 70 % held by three suppliers alone, even though the duration of this contract exceeds the average duration of contracts generally concluded on the relevant market? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a supplier of petroleum-based products is granted a right known as a ‘surface right’ for a period of 45 years for the purpose of building a service station and letting it to the owner of the land for a period equivalent to the duration of the right, and which contains an exclusive purchasing obligation for the same period, be regarded as being of negligible importance and as not being caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC (now Article 101(1) TFEU) on the grounds, principally, of the supplier’s modest market share of less than 3 %, compared to the total market share of about 70 % held by three suppliers alone, even though the duration of this contract exceeds the average duration of contracts generally concluded on the relevant market?

| 2. | If the reply were to be in the negative and the agreement were to fall to be examined under Regulation No 1984/83 (1) and Regulation No 2790/99, (2) may Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/99 in conjunction with Article 5(a) of the same regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in view of the reseller’s not being the owner of the land and the remaining duration of the contract’s being more than five years on 1 January 2002, the contract will become void on 31 December 2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply were to be in the negative and the agreement were to fall to be examined under Regulation No 1984/83 (1) and Regulation No 2790/99, (2) may Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/99 in conjunction with Article 5(a) of the same regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in view of the reseller’s not being the owner of the land and the remaining duration of the contract’s being more than five years on 1 January 2002, the contract will become void on 31 December 2006?

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).

2

---